Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute INDABA AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 st...

Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute

INDABA AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

1st African Congress on Conservation Agriculture,Intercontinental Hotel,

Lusaka, Zambia 18th – 21st March 2014

What Explains Minimal Usage of Minimum Tillage Practices in Zambia? Evidence from District-

Representative Data

Hambulo Ngoma, Brian P. Mulenga & T.S. Jayne


Introduction and background2

Advantages commonly attributed to Conservation Agriculture (CA): improves yield levels Improves yield stability in response to moisture stress Eases peak season “labour bottlenecks” by transferring

land prep. to off season, thereby enabling expansion of cultivated area

Thus CA is one of the strategic areas in Zambia’s National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP) 2013-2018

CA land management practices based on minimum tillage (MT) basins, ripping & zero tillage, plus crop residue retention, rotation with legumes and agroforestry with N-fixing plants

We focus on MT in this study, excluding zero tillage


Introduction and background cont.

Despite over 2 decades of active promotion of CA in Zambia, evidence of CA adoption and impact is mixed:

8% of farmers used basins and 0.5% used ripping in the 1999/00 season (Haggblade & Tembo, 2003), data issues may overstate etsimates

Donovan & Kabwe (2005) estimated 7% sustained use of basins between 2000/1 – 2002/3

CFU estimated 12% of farmers used MT in 2009/10 up from 2% in 2006/7 based on 17 districts; current CFU estimates indicate 41% of farmers use MT - project specific

Aslihan et al., (2013) - 95% disadoption between 2004 and 2008 nationally

We find less than 5% MT use between 2008 and 2012 in Zambia!

Low CA adoption in SSA with its impact contested (Giller et al., 2009; Grawboski & Kerr, 2013)

Paradoxical that CA use/adoption is so low despite its “well known” profitability we explore reasons in this study

3


Objectives

To examine trends in use of planting basins and ripping between 2008 and 2012

To determine factors influencing use of planting basins and ripping and,

To determine factors influencing size of land cultivated under planting basins and ripping

4


Data

District and nationally representative Crop Forecast Survey (CFS) data were used for 2008 – 2012, with a total of 63,000 households over the 5 years

District-level rainfall data from 1996-2011 from Zambia Meteorological Department ( from 36 stations imputed for other districts) - generated measures of droughts and floods variables

FGDs in 3 districts with 69 farmers Key informant interviews with CFU project staff, MAL extension

officers and researchers Literature review

CFS collected data using semi-structured questionnaires on Demographics, landholding, field size Main tillage method used in each field basis for our estimates

5


Methods

Descriptive analysis used to generate trend tables and graphs

Used a Control Function Double Hurdle model to determine factors influencing MT use and extent of use

Endogeneity of CA promotional programs: Included an instrumental variable for being in a district where MT is promoted

Average partial effects evaluated via bootstrapping

6


7


Results and discussion cont.

8

Figure 1: Trends in the total weighted numbers of smallholder farmers using ripping and/or planting basins by year from 2008-201l2 in Zambia



Upward trend in MT use rates, but very low (< 5%) nationally (< 10% in top 10 districts*) between 2008 and 2012. Why is this so? Increasing trend partly explained by increased donor CA-

supported projects during 2008-2010 And low use rates?

FGDs - provision of “material handouts” to “lure” farmers; high labor demands; & limited access to finance; some farmers adopted as a condition for receiving FSP/FISP

Key informant interviews and literature search; CA yield boosting potential contested beyond experimental plots

poor resource farmers may not afford purchased inputs Competing uses for crop residues, mulch vs. fodder

High labor requirements (esp. for women) and finance constraints faced by farmers

* Based on Ngoma et al (forthcoming)

9


Determinants of use of planting basins, ripping, & MT : 2008 - 2012

10

Average Partial Effects

Variables Planting basins Ripping Minimum Tillage

Male headed household (=1) -0.0027* 0.0038*** 0.0083** Age of the household head (years) 0.0001* 0.0000 0.0001** Land holding size (ha) 0.0018** 0.0060*** 0.0065*** Rainfall stress( # of 20 day periods with less than 40mm of rain

-0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0001

Positive rain deviation (mm) -0.0268*** -0.0341*** -0.0474***

Negative rain deviation (mm) 0.0110 0.0412** 0.0276 CFU has operations 0.0010 0.0328** 0.0788*** Agro ecological zone 2a * negative rain deviation (mm)

0.0500*** 0.0033 0.0454**

Cattle disease (=1) - -0.0108*** -0.0187***

Joint provincial dummy 187.77*** 77.51*** 205.70***

Joint year dummy 168.72*** 194.07*** 171.75***Bootstrap replications 400 400 400



On drivers of MT use:

Increased land access improves uptake of basins and ripping among those already using the practices Unconditional land access influence is very small

Following a season with droughts and floods, farmers would increase and reduce use of MT, respectively linked to climate change adaptation – core focus of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)

Incidences of cattle diseases a risk factor to uptake of MT, esp. ripping

Limited influence of sex of household head on MT uptake

11


Main Conclusions & Implications

Despite more than 2 decades of active promotion, we find low but rising use rates (<5%) of total smallholder crop farmers used MT between 2008 and 2012

There is potential to increase MT uptake: farmers seem to appreciate it as a way of stabilizing yields during droughts, but it does not seem appropriate for years of excessive rainfall

Farmers with relatively large landholdings more likely to adopt (proxy for ability to hire land and afford requisite inputs?)

More support needed to collection and dissemination of weather data Cattle diseases control need to be ramped up and promotion of tractor

ripping services as an alternative to enhance uptake of ripping For a better understanding of drivers of CA adoption/disadoption in

Zambia, there is need to look beyond the technical aspect A socio-economic panel study could address some of the unanswered questions

12


13Source: CFU

THANK YOU


IAPRI WEBSITE/ADDRESSIAPRI WEBSITE/ADDRESS

http://www.iapri.org.zm/

Or

http://www.aec.msu.edu/fs2/zambia/index.htm

Plot No. 26A Middleway Road, KabulongaPostNet Box 99, Kabulonga

Lusaka, ZambiaTel: +260 211 261194/97

Fax: +260 211 261199

14

Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute INDABA AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 st...

Documents

Transcript of Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute INDABA AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 st...